Beretta 92/M9 Locking Block Failures?

[Chindo18Z]

I am interested in anyone's experience with broken locking blocks or other catastrophic failures with the various versions of Beretta's 92/M9 Series. Problems with departmental issue weapons, personaly owned pistols, or military issue are of interest. My unit is especially dissatisfied with the advertised "round count service life" of the M9 vs. our real life experience (aprox. 25-30% failure of all issued pistols after less than 5 years use). It is especially disconcerting to have these weapons fail when deployed downrange (i.e., Bosnia, Kosovo, Africa, etc.). Any feedback would be appreciated. I am already aware of the earlier tendancy for the receiver to launch off of the slide rails and into the operator's face. Wasn't it decent of the manufacturers to fix that problem? My associates and I are looking for factual justification to get rid of our M9s and go to something better (M11 SIG for instance...)
Thanks in advance...

[This message has been edited by Chindo18Z (edited July 27, 1999).]

 

[BrokenArrow]

According to DoD/Beretta T&E, blocks are good for 17-22K rounds, slides avg 55K, frames 35K with mil-spec ammo (about 38K psi). Contract only specified 5K for everything so you may have a tough time justifying something else?

5 yrs tells me nada much. How many rounds in 5 yrs? The M11, based on my experience, may not be any better if you are going over 15K rounds. Easier to replace a block in the M9 than the frame on the M11.


------------------
>>>>---->

 

[Chindo18Z]

Thankyou for the info...The unit never kept an accurate round count from date of issue, however, research tends to indicate that the first two years saw only 200-600 rds put down the bore for each M9 (Theater 9mm shortage). The following years (continuing to present) have seen higher usage (1200-2400 rds per year). Some of these pistols are breaking with fewer than 5000 total rounds of NATO spec. ball fired. We know that the weapons should last longer; the problem is that they are not. Comparable or higher firing rates with our M1911A1s rarely caused problems. I have fired a comparable number of rounds out of my CZ 85 and Glock 19 and experienced no problems. The group consensus of experienced shooters at my location is that we are victims of a "low bidder" scenario regarding pistol procurement. We further feel that our issued M9s may have a manufacturing quality control problem. In any event, we are pretty disgusted with the weapon. (On the plus side...one of our guys had to double-tap
a Serbian thug a few months ago with NATO 9mm ball. Two hits, center mass chest, near instantaneous stop. Lots of practice from a concealed draw and aimed fire...Shot placement counts more than caliber). Side by side shooting with fellows who utilize SIGs have elicited no comparable complaints. I am not partisan to SIG over Beretta. The M9 reminds me of a FIAT...fun to drive...when it is running. Don't feel badly armed with the M9, but would prefer any of a number of other weapons (1911, SIG, CZ, Browning P-35, Glock, etc.) H&K USSOCOM Offensive Pistol will not fill the same bill of usage particulars as the M1911A1 or M9.
The M11 is available to us...it may have its own set of problems...but, right now, it looks good.
Do you have an on-line source of your quoted contract data? It would be useful for position papers or course of action briefs to the guys who cut the checks.
Thanks again for the reply...

`